The US Government Spends Too Much Money on Everything

We spend too much time worrying about which Government programs are terrible, and not enough time worrying about the fact that all Government programs spend way too much money.

Let me kick off this post by pointing out that Hillary Clinton's State Department "lost" $20 of every person's money in the US from 2008-2014 alone. That's right, there was over $6 billion unaccounted for in the state department over the course of 6 years.

I'm Hillary Clinton and I misplaced $20 from every single American.

$20 per person. See what I did there? I used math. I took the big number, which we physically can't imagine the size of, and divided it by the amount of people in the US to get a number which we can all imagine very easily.

You see, we can chuck around large figures left and right and pretend we know what we're talking about. Congress does it all the time. They regularly present and pass bills that throw around billions of dollars. They forget that there are only 300 million US citizens. Every $1 billion they spend is over $3 from every US citizen's pocket on average.

Let's do an Exercise

Pull out a $20 bill from your wallet. Give it to me. 

Why not? Don't you trust me to use it adequately? Well I won't. I promise I will use it irresponsibly and probably "accidentally" spend it and not account for the spending. That is essentially what just happened in the State Department case. They stole your $20 and lost it.

Imagine if somebody reached into your wallet and grabbed a $20 bill. You'd be pretty angry! Me too! The Government seems to think it's perfectly acceptable to create mandates that simply take some cash out of your wallet and throw it around inefficiently to support their pet causes.

This issue is way more serious than $20 per person.

There are thousands of Government mandates and laws that are unnecessary wastes of money. There are thousands of expenditures that don't do anything that the private market couldn't do 10x better with faster turnover time and far more economic benefit.

Democrats and Republicans can't seem to agree on what programs to cut. Here's a wild suggestion: cut all of them. Slice the spending in every single category, and get completely out of the majority of them.

Too much healthcare spending

For example, the government spends $3,000 per person on healthcare yearly (expected to skyrocket under Obamacare). Why do you think hospitals charge ridiculous prices? They know they can extort the money from the Government. This is incredibly obvious of a concept that people do not seem to understand. If you offer to buy a product from somebody no matter what they charge, they will charge insane amounts. Who cares if they lose a few customers who use their own money rather than the government, who cares if they lose a few insurance providers. If one customer, the government, tells hospitals that they'll cover the cost of a large population's healthcare, the hospitals will made the "cost" far more than it needs to be.

The solution should not be to repeat the thing that caused the problem in the first place. Government mandates will not fix the problem that government mandates have caused, unless the second mandate is to repeal the first. Look at our history! We had the best, most cost-effective and technologically advanced healthcare in the world until the government got involved. From my perspective, we are still the most technologically advanced, and arguably have the best health outcomes and most certainly have the best doctors.

All of the main studies quoted by socialists have the same flaws. Most of them are based on life-expectancy, which is not determined by healthcare quality. There are tens of other causes of low life-expectancy than healthcare quality including crime rates, suicide rates, drug usage, sanitation, diet, exercise, and level of stress. Any one of these things being inconsistent among countries makes the studies comparing the countries on their life expectancy completely void. Another metric used by these studies is survey results based on the expectations of the person who went into healthcare. If you've met a US citizen, you know we tend to have extremely high expectations for almost everything, and anytime something goes wrong a lot of us will speak up about it. Can you really base the quality of healthcare on survey results if the expectations of one country are far higher than another?

The point is, people who argue that government controlled healthcare is a good idea are generally using false statistics to prove their points. Another thought to consider is that insurance companies are extraordinarily good at motivating hospitals to get their act together. If the hospitals didn't have the government as their main financer, they would have to actually listen to their customer. Insurance providers would start instruct their members to go to other hospitals if one hospital was acting up and charging too much. If a hospital decided to stop advancing their medical technology, the same result would occur. This sort of consumer power is important in driving costs down and quality up.

Let me share another statistic that will make you angry, and one of the best to combat advocates of government spending on healthcare. The Government spends $443 per person on medical bills directly caused by tobacco usage a year as of 2013. You read correctly. This is one fact that fiscal liberals will hide from you. You, as an average US citizen, are paying $443 because other people live a self-destructive lifestyle.

Too much welfare spending

The Government spends $1,243 per person on welfare. That's right, they take over $1,000 from each one of us on average claiming that it will somehow prevent poverty. Last time I checked, losing money is actually a great way to enter into poverty. If the Government takes money from the middle class (well over $1000 per person because the poor aren't paying it), the middle class has less money.

Sorry to bang your head against an obvious point, but this is the core principal behind fiscal conservatism that people don't seem to understand. If you take money from somebody, they have less money. They become more "poor". There's no way around it.

I could go on and on.

You get the point by now. The Government spends an outrageous amount on things that we should not be paying for. They take large lumps of money, and forget that a lot of the people they are taking the money from could really use that money, and do it more efficiently.

They don't just spend money, they spend money in gargantuan proportions and do it irresponsibly. Next time you see a bill that throws around some billion dollar figure, think about this post. Think about how much they are taking out of your wallet with that bill.